Reversing Economic and Political Inequality in the United StatesIn the past few years, economic inequality in the United States has reached levels not seen since the 1890s. The Occupy Wall Street protests, calling themselves, and by implication almost everyone, the "99 percent", have shown a spotlight on this growing problem. The problem is that, while by some measures the economy is doing much better than it was just a few decades ago, for many of us, it is not doing any better at all. Looking at gross domestic product per capita, we are doing very well indeed. However, real median income is virtually the same now as it was in 1967. This has important consequences beyond the simple circumstance of luxuries being available to the elite and not to the rest of us. At ever higher levels of wealth, money becomes more than just a tool to consume. Money becomes a source of political power. Candidates for office without the support of wealthy donors are now overwhelmed by politicians who serve the interests of the elite. Polices which are only important to the wealthy - the capital gains tax and the top income tax rate, for example - have become top priorities for our representatives in Congress. Policies which are only important for the rest of us - the minimum wage and affordable food, shelter, education and transportation - have become afterthoughts. Ultimately, if we fail to halt this concentration of wealth in our country, we will eventually slide backwards into a feudal economy. In that case, we will resemble a third world country, where freedoms and opportunities are few, and theft is the only way to get ahead. There are several policies we should work toward that can solve this problem. Here are three that we believe will make the biggest difference. First, public financing of campaigns. We actually have a system for public financing of presidential campaigns, but it has unfortunately fallen by the wayside because of spending limits that are too low, and donation limits that are too high. We've never had public financing for congressional campaigns. When candidates are able to run for, and win, public office without spending thousands of hours raising money, we will see a fundamental shift in political priorities. Second, raising the minimum wage, and indexing it to inflation. The minimum wage is simply far too low. A person working the now-usual 50 hours per week at the current minimum wage of $7.25 per hour will make only $20,735 per year. And most people working minimum wage jobs have families to support. Because they need to work every hour they can, to make every cent they can, they often have little or no time for education or training to get a better job. They also have little time for taking care of their children, which leads to generations of families with few opportunities. Third, increasing subsidies for child care and education. Public funding for education has been in long term decline for decades. In the past few years, funding has been cut drastically. This means that opportunities for people to advance their station in life are evaporating. As a nation, we are underinvesting in our most valuable resource - ourselves. It is ironic, because historically we have had a higher commitment to education than anywhere else in the world. In recent years, the United States has become less of a land of opportunity. We have decided that helping out regular people is too expensive, while helping out the wealthy and powerful is imperative. We can and should reverse this trend. Fight Back Against Bans on Woman's Rights to ContraceptionWe've all seen the Catholic Church and Republicans insist that providing contraceptive services to Catholic hospitals' employees violates the hospitals' right to freedom of religion. Well, this insistence of religious freedom not only interferes with employees' health, but also with their patients' health.
First, allowances for Catholic hospitals to follow their beliefs while providing services to the public means that the hospital, doctors, nurses and other employees can deny legal services for patients and benefits to employees. Patients at these hospitals are prevented from receiving contraceptive and abortion services. For example, if a woman is raped and taken to a hospital by an ambulance service, that ambulance is required by law to take the patient to a hospital in the geographic area specified by state regulations. If it is a Catholic hospital, a woman can be refused emergency contraceptive services even if she demands this service from either the hospital or doctor. Further, this woman will not even be given information that this service might be available to her at another hospital.
Once as a trained advocate for a rape crisis center,I had a young client who went out of her residential area to a bar with friends. She was attacked and raped on her way home. She was taken legally by an ambulance service to the nearest hospital which happened to be a Catholic hospital. This hospital was assigned a service area by government laws and its construction was funded by government funds. This young woman was not offered services or information about emergency contraception. Further, it led to later problems with an unintended pregnancy and an ongoing argument between the teen and her parents on how to manage the situation. In this situation, we do not know if the teen would have wanted the emergency contraception; she was not offered the information that would have given her a choice. Her rights were taken away.
I was a public health professional employed by a large health department dealing with women's services a few years ago. Federal funds for women's health services are handed out in block grants to state and local county health departments. The board of health, composed of anti-choice Republicans decided, contrary to federal laws. not to offer referrals for abortions. They felt that their voters would not approve of it.
As a professional working in this health department, I experienced opposition from local politicians. Even after we professionals at the health department fought, challenged the board and got those legal, protected rights reinstated, I had one doctor on her own try to subvert a woman's rights. A patient was coming in for emergency contraception and I was directed by my supervisor to give the patient her pills when the doctor on duty signed the prescription; however, the doctor on duty refused. We had standing orders from the supervising physician to dispense the prescription as needed. On that basis I dispensed the first prescription for emergency contraception by the department.
In this Republican-controlled local government we had to fight for women's right to to legal and funded services. In many instances, local control of federal money and institutions can take away constitutional rights and leave woman at the mercy of local government officials who will not comply with the law. Giving federal money by block grants to local government ends up in many abuses of people's rights.
We must fight back in these ways:
First, federal money must be distributed by federal employees who can be removed if they don't perform their legal responsibilities.
Second, all institutions receiving federal funds must provide all legal services. Refusing to do so must result in removal of all federal funding for that institution and the individuals preventing services.
Third, women must fight back and run for state, local, and federal office. They will only have their rights when they are willing to fight for them.
We can see how Republicans view this as a time to take away women's right to healthcare and choice. States are acting to restrict women's right to preventive health services at Planned Parenthood by refusing to fund their primary care services with federal funds.
We at DAPAC are committed to helping as many pro-choice women and men get elected as possible. Together progressive women and men will prevent this Republican right-wing agenda of removing women's rights to health services.
REDISTRICTING CREATES 7 NEW POTENTIAL DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTSILLINOIS Illinois' redistricting plan has redrawn three new districts without incumbents. We must ensure these Democrats are progressive Democrats. 8 th: NW Chicago Suburbs: This district includes the edge city of Schaumburg, and has a large South Asian population. In 2008, Obama received 62% of the vote in the area now covered by the district. 10 th: North Chicago Suburbs: This district covers the Lake Michigan shore from just north of Chicago north to the Wisconsin border. It contains the city of Waukegan. In 2008 Obama received 62% of the vote in these areas. 11 th: West/Southwest Chicago Suburbs :
This district covers far west and southwest suburbs of Chicago, including the edge cities of Aurora and Naperville. There is a large Hispanic population in the district. In 2008, Obama received 61% of the vote in the area now covered by this district. CALIFORNIA California;s new plan, was drawn by an initiative-directed, bi-partisan committee consisting of 5 Democrats, 5 Republicans, and 5 members drawn from other political groups. The new districts' boundaries have resulted in more Democratic leanings in districts 3, 26, 41 and 52, and can expect to result in the ouster of Republicans Gallegly, Dreier, Miller and Bilbray. Republicans are contesting the results but a final vote by the committee will be taken on August 16th. Defined maps and descriptions will be available soon after this vote. More Articles... |